From Jay Lindsay:
Jim Riccio, of Greenpeace, said nuclear advocates are exploiting global warming fears to try to revive an industry that’s too risky to fool with.
“You have better ways to boil water,” Riccio said.
But environmentalists aren’t in lockstep on the issue. Bill Chameides, chief scientist for Environmental Defense, said anything that helps alleviate global warming must be an energy option.
“I think it’s somewhat disingenuous that folks who agree that global warming is such a serious issue could sort of dismiss it out of hand,” he said. “It’s got to be at least considered.”
This is why the Alarmists warnings are so suspect. If their Doomsday scenarios are to be believed any risks involved in more nuclear plants would be far outweighed by the costs of inaction. Same thing with hydroelectric and even wind power in most cases. The only solution on the table for them is restricting economic activity.
I’ll give ‘er a go if Mike M agrees to store nuke waste under his child’s bed. For the good of economic activity, you see.
Dano, maybe it is Mike’s child (you asume he is a parent) and surely the next generation who should have the option to utilize nuclear power. It is not our role or obligation to abolish that option.
Your comment does not reflect your usual high quality commentary.